Man assaulted in the street and subsequently arrested after shouting, “Andrew, you’re a sick old man” at Prince Andrew.
The report is silent on what happened to his attackers.
That’s probably ok though, shouting at someone at their mother’s funeral is beyond the pale and should have the full force of the law applied as a consequence.
Similarly, it’s right that this woman, arrested for holding a sign saying, “Abolish the Monarchy”, should face the legal consequences.
What about this one, then?
Man required to give details to police after holding a blank piece of paper at the Queen’s coffin procession.
Are we happy with these police interventions?
Which one was the overreach of the state, in your view, and why?
The slippery slope fallacy may be a logical mistake, but one can slide a long way before the descent is halted.
All three of these examples are unacceptable restrictions of freedom of speech and expression.
In the UK, the legal standard restricting free speech used to be “grossly offensive” – repeatedly posting pornographic images to somebody, for example.
Now, the standard has not only been reduced to merely offensive, but there doesn’t need to be an identified victim of the offensiveness either.
……why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this
chamber – a democratically elected government. Their leaders are
self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of
speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
I’m not convinced.